IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.318 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . KARNATAKA RAJYA NIVRUTA POURA NOUKARARA MATU POURA KARMIKARA SANGHA O/O KUNDA MAHALAKSHMI NILAYA 4TH CROSS, SRINIVAS NAGAR HULIYARU ROAD, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT MR. YAKUB ALI S/O ABDUL RAZAK AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT. C/O SHABAD HOTEL NEAR MAKA MASJID, MSK MILL BRAHAMPUR POST, KALABURAGI-585 103 2 . MR. MALLIKARJUN S/O BASANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR O/O TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ALAND KALABURAGI R/AT. 1-4-59, BEHIND HANUMAN TEMPLE SULTANPUR GALI, KALABURAGI-585 302 3 . MR. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O YANKANNAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHORAPUR, KALABURAGI - 2 R/AT. BICH GATAKERA, SHARAPUR GORAPUR TALUK, YADGIR DISTRICT-585 224 4 . MR. KUMAR S/O LATE DANDU NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PERIYAPATNAM R/AT.405, DODDANAYAKARA STREET PERIYAPATNAM, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107 5 . MR. LAKSHMI B. S/O LATE B.M. RAMU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION CLERK O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PUTTUR-574 201 R/AT. MOTTETHADKA HOUSE KEMMINJE VILLAGE, DARBE POST PUTTUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-574 201 6 . MR. MAREPPA S/O YAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHORAPUR, YADGIR-585 224 R/AT. SHORAPUR TALUK, YADGIR-585 224 7 . MR. DEVAPPA S/O ULLINGARAYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHAHAPUR, YADGIR-585 224 R/AT. No.6-98, DESAI STREET HALLI SAGAR, SHAHAPUR TALUK YADGIR-585 224 8 . MR. SYED MAQSOOD BUKHARI S/O SYED BUKHARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS - 3 WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHORAPUR, YADGIR-585 224 R/AT. MOZAMPUR STREET 1-83 SHORAPUR TALUK, YADGIR-585 224 9 . MR. SYED MAZAR AHAMED S/O SYED JAFAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHAHAPUR, YADGIR-585 224 R/AT. 4-22-3-A, HALLISAGAR SHORAPUR TALUK, YADGIR-585 224 10 . MR. SYED YUNUS DAKARI S/O SYED YOSUF AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR-CUM LINE MAN O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHORAPUR, YADGIR-585 224 R/AT. 9-1-27, NEAR UMAR MASJID SHORAPUR TALUK, YADGIR-585 224 11 . MRS. JAYALAKSHMI BEKAL W/O C.H. MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR-CUM-CLERK O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PUTTUR-574 201 R/AT. S.R. NILAYA, NEHRU ROAD GORIGUDDU, KANKANADY POST MANGALORE-574 201 12 . MR. ABU BAKAR TARAFDAR S/O ABDUL RAZAK AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GADAG-582 209 R/AT. OLD MARKET, RON TALUK GADAG DISTRICT-582 209 - 4 13 . MR. ASHOK S/O BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHALKI, BIDAR-585 328 R/AT. 3-2-37, KADKESHWAR GALLI OLD TOWN BHALKI, BIDAR-585 328 14 . MR. M.A. HAFEEZ S/O M.A. RASHEED AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ORIGINALLY WORKED AS SDA NOW WORKING AS HEALTH INSPECTOR O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BIDAR-585 401 R/AT. OPP. ASRA MEDICAL SHAGANG BIDAR-585 401 15 . MRS. AMRUTHARAO MALI W/O CHARADASHA MALI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR BILL COLLECTOR O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302 R/AT. No.2-265, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE KUMBAR GALLI, ALAND KALABURAGI-585 302 16 . MR. SIDARAMA S/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302 R/AT. No.6-3-81-265, BALYAR GALLI ALAND, KALABURAGI-585302 17 . MR. DHANAYYA S/O VISHWANATHAYYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR - 5 O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302 R/AT. 6-1-14/55, REVANA SIDDESHWARA COLONY ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302 18 . SMT. JAYASHREE W/O HEMANTH RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS TYPIST O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302 R/AT. No.1-1-100, NEAR SULTANPUR GA ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 302 19 . MR. GURULINGAPPA S/O ADIVEPPA SULIKERE AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AFZALPUR, KALABURAGI-585 302 R/AT. GURUVINGOAPPAN STREET ADIVEPPA SULIKERE POST AFZALPUR, KALABURAGI-585 302 20 . MR. SHIVRAJ KUMAR S/O SHANKAR JATTUR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS DAFEDAR NOW AS HEALTH INSPECTOR O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHAHABAD, KALABURAGI-585 302 R/AT. 115, VIDYA NAGAR, SEDAM TALUK KALABURAGI-585 302 21 . MR. ISAK S. S/O LATE MONU BEARY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS SDA O/O. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 201 R/AT. SAMPYAMOOLE HOUSE KURIYA POST, PUTTUR GADAG-574 201 - 6 22 . MR. MUTTANNA S/O SHARANAPPA BANDARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS SDA O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHITAPUR, KALABURAGI-585 229 R/AT. No.16/2, ABL COLONY 16TH CROSS, SHAHABAD KALABURAGI-574 201 23 . MR. SIDDAPPA SOMPUR S/O CHANDRAM SOMPUR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER O/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHITAPUR, KALABURAGI-585 229 R/AT. CHANDRODHAYA NIVAS HIREMATH LAYOUT NEAR CHURCH, SOMPUR ROAD VIJAPUR-513 004 ...COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . Dr. SHALINI RAJNEESH CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2 . UMA SHANAKAR, IAS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT No.305, 4TH FLOOR VIKAS SOUDHA Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 - 7 3 . SMT. SATHYAVATHI G. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA DPAR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 4 . SHRI. PRABHULING KAVALIKATTI, IAS DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR, V V TOWERS Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 ...ACCUSED 5 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 ...PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. K.S. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR PROFORMA R5; A1 TO A4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS COURT BY ORDER DATED 19.06.2023 PASSED IN W.P.No.13154/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 8 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the Order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13154/2021 (S- REG). 2. We have heard Shri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Anusha L, learned advocate appearing for the complainants, Shri. Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Shri. K.S. Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for proforma respondent No.5. 3. It is submitted that the complainants were appointed on a daily wage basis in 1990-1995 with the respective City/Town Municipal Council. After the Municipal Council passed a resolution, the complainants who had rendered more than thirty years of service, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.13154/2021. They sought directions to the respondents to treat them as permanent employees upon completion of ten years of service and to - 9 regularize their services on the principle of parity, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 and Malathi Das (Retired) Now P.B.Mahishy and Others v. Suresh and Others reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249. 4. The learned Single Judge observed that the writ papers disclosed that respondent No.4 had passed an order dated 05.11.2019 stating that a decision regarding regularisation of the service of the petitioners was required to be taken by the Government. However, despite the said order, no further action was taken. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and a Division Bench of this Court in The State of Karnataka v. R. Jagadeesh and Others passed in Writ Appeal No.45/2013 and connected appeals dated 13.11.2013, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the City/Town Municipal Council and Deputy Commissioner to forward the service reports of the petitioners to - 10 respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 was directed to consider the reports submitted by the respective City/Town Municipal Council and Deputy Commissioner and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and in light of the decisions of Umadevi's case (supra) and R. Jagadeesha's case (supra). 5. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the complainants that the complainants have rendered more than 25-30 years of service and have approached this Court seeking regularisation as similar relief has already been extended to their colleagues in similar Town Municipal Councils. After hearing both the parties, this Court directed that the case of the complainants be considered in the light of the decision rendered in Writ Appeal No.45/2013 in which a mandamus was issued by order dated 13.11.2013. On the basis of the said mandamus, the order was implemented by the State Government by Order dated 11.09.2020. Consequently, on the principle of parity, the directions issued by this Court are - 11 required to be complied with in respect of the complainants as well. 6. Accused No.4 has filed a memo producing the proceedings of the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru, dated 25.03.2024 and submits that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge stand complied with. It is submitted that the case of each of the Employees has been considered with reference to the report forwarded by the City/Town Municipal Councils and the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi's case (supra), it has been found that the employees are not eligible for regularisation of service since the conditions provided have not been complied with. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the reports of the City/Town Municipal Councils have been specifically considered and adverted to while passing the orders, the Contempt of Court Case cannot survive for further consideration. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the complainants submits that a reading of the Order dated 25.03.2024, would show that the specific material forwarded - 12 by the City/Town Municipal Councils has not been properly considered by the Director and that the attempt of the Government is to find some means to reject the claim of the complainants. It is contended that the direction being specifically to consider the claims on the basis of the report submitted by the City/Town Municipal Councils, the accused who have not complied with the said directions are still in contempt and are liable to be proceeded against. 8. We have considered the contentions advanced. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge by order dated 21.10.2020 in Writ Petition No.50876/2019 c/w. Writ Petitions No.8573/2020, 31602/2019 (S-REG), reads as follows:- "A writ of mandamus issues to respondent No.5- Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and the Government Order dated 25.05.2006 from the date on which the petitioners completed ten years of service." 9. The learned Single Judge had also found that the writ petitions could not be dismissed on delay and laches - 13 and the relevant material including the recommendations of the City/Town Municipal Councils as well as the earlier recommendations issued in favour of the complainants were not properly considered and communicated to the complainants that the earlier orders were quashed. Thereafter, the accused contend that the claim for regularisation was specifically taken up by accused No.4 and the claim of each of the complainants for regularisation was considered in terms of the criteria laid down in Umadevi's case (supra), and the claims were rejected, on clear factual findings. 10. Having perused the Orders placed before us along with the compliance affidavit, we find that the materials and reports forwarded by the City/Town Municipal Councils and the earlier recommendations and communications of the Director have been considered by accused No.4 while passing the order dated 25.03.2024 by the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru. The question whether the factual aspects, as considered by - 14 accused No.4, are correct and justifiable are not the matters which this Court can consider in the contempt jurisdiction. 11. This Court in Malathi Das's case (supra), has clearly held that an action for Contempt of Court would be maintainable only if there is a deliberate contempt committed of the Orders of the Court. It has also been held that on a wrong compliance or an imperfect compliance on the basis of the perception and understanding of the decision makers cannot give rise to an action for contempt or a punishment for the same. 12. In view of the fact that the proceedings of the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru, has been issued by Order dated 25.03.2024, considering the contentions advanced as well as the earlier communications on the point, we are of the opinion that, any further contentions have to be considered in a properly constituted challenge to the same. 13. In the above view of the matter, the Contempt of Court Case is closed with liberty to the complainants to - 15 challenge the proceedings of the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru, issued by Order No.1157655/DMA/EST 2/DWE/26/2023 dated 25.03.2024. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*